If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

There used to be a fellow poster on another forum who was always writing these fantastic threads about NASA fakery.

In particular, about how the satellites that NASA claims to launch, are as fake as the shuttle missions.A couple things to consider, one the ones that NASA claims are placed in the exosphere via missiles are subject to an array of various solar radiations that would interrupt and interfere with transmission of signals to the point of negating their being useful at all. Not to mention they never bother to explain how or where the fuel is stored for decades to do the necessary almost constant corrections to keep up with the Earth's transit around the Sun. They are not attached in any meaningful way according to NASA to Earth's gravitational field.

Then the one's that would be supposedly geosynchronous at 300 to 500 miles up, have the same problem of needing constant corrections to keep it from merely falling to Earth because of having to fight the gravitational forces.

In essence, we are still using old-fashioned ground radio waves to send and receive signals off the ionosphere. I tested this myself by calling a tech support group for a national cable system and asking them some pointed questions, which after passing me around to several guys, never could give me answers to my questions. Basically, I was asking if 'rabbit ears' and antennae still work, and if so why? I said, on the one hand you are telling me your signal has to travel out to a relay satellite a thousand miles up. How does the signal "know" that it doesn't have to just bounce off the ionosphere anymore? Or how does it know that some of it needs to bounce off the ionosphere and part of it still needs to hit a relay a thousand miles out? They were stumped.

I finally got one to admit what the box is REALLY for. It has a broader frequency band so that it can hit 300 points on the range instead of 13 that comes standard with your TV. The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

Unleashed wrote:The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

The slant of the dish should change according to latitude. Two italian cities like Milan and Rome, for example, that are at different latitudes but roughly the same longitude, should have dishes pointing roughly in the same direction, but in Rome they should point slightly upward (assuming the satellites travel around the equator).

Assuming the dish has to be pointed right at the general area where the signal comes from (the satellite orbit around the equator, for example, or an antenna on the ground, like you seem to imply) : for low that a dish can be slanted, there is no way it is pointing at anything else but the sky. Even the slightest pointing up would require an incredibly high tower to emit the signal just a few kilometers away, no? Where are these high towers? Have you ever seen any? Also: How can satellites phones work, say in the middle of oceans? How come satellite TV can be watched on cruise ships, or in the middle of deserted, faraway areas? etc.

Unleashed wrote:The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

If we still can rely on basic knowledge such as the earth is a sphere and has gravity which will get weaker the farther you go away from it - satellites are indeed quite possible Some pictures here cause doubts though.

TV satellites are almost exclusively in geostationary orbit (i.e. above the eqator).Thats one reason they are more difficult to receive the more north or south you go - far north or south comparativly larger dishes are needed to get a good enough signal.Dishes in coutries not close to the equator are offset designs - they seem not to point directly at the satelite, but they do (parabolic shape, reflection, focal point).Some advantages are: easier to mount, less space used, dish will not be filled with water or snow or dirt.

Unleashed wrote:The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

The slant of the dish should change according to latitude. Two italian cities like Milan and Rome, for example, that are at different latitudes but roughly the same longitude, should have dishes pointing roughly in the same direction, but in Rome they should point slightly upward (assuming the satellites travel around the equator).

Assuming the dish has to be pointed right at the general area where the signal comes from (the satellite orbit around the equator, for example, or an antenna on the ground, like you seem to imply) : for low that a dish can be slanted, there is no way it is pointing at anything else but the sky. Even the slightest pointing up would require an incredibly high tower to emit the signal just a few kilometers away, no? Where are these high towers? Have you ever seen any? Also: How can satellites phones work, say in the middle of oceans? How come satellite TV can be watched on cruise ships, or in the middle of deserted, faraway areas? etc.

I asked about that, too. He told me there would have to be an uplink/downlink satellite somewhere in my area that is 300 ft. wide. I started laughing.

Nobody has improved on Marconi. Have you read "Thunderstruck" by Erik Larson? That work involved detailing Marconi's efforts to link ships to radio. If TV had been invented then, you could have watched TV in your stateroom as early as the mid-1900's. The story of Dr. Crippen would have been the first murder mystery real time show on the small screen!

The signal for phones is still bouncing off the ionosphere. The great improvement seems to be that research has shown that parabolic antennas receive and send radio waves more efficiently. The difference in the cellphone towers is that Marconi's research showed that according to the height of an antenna has everything to do with the angle at which the signal strikes the ionosphere. That way the two do not interfere with each other. Neither modern invention requires satellites.

If you notice, the first thing Jim Cantore tells you is that they are still sending planes up to take pictures and measure the eye. So the photos seen today are pretty much just like the ones our parents saw in the 1960's onward. They aren't coming from a satellite orbiting the Earth.

After thinking about this I have tried to see if it bears out in other scenarios. There was a professor who was relating the floating mass of garbage bigger than the size of Texas in the Pacific ocean.It seems that he is frustrated because their funding does not cover the cost of planes to fly over it at a required altitude in order to photograph the Pacific Garbage Patch fully. So he ends up taking pictures from the edges in a boat and "guesstimating" it's size. I said aloud to myself. Wow, too bad we don't have things like satellites to photograph them!

Unleashed wrote:The satellite is a scam. If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

If we still can rely on basic knowledge such as the earth is a sphere and has gravity which will get weaker the farther you go away from it - satellites are indeed quite possible Some pictures here cause doubts though.

TV satellites are almost exclusively in geostationary orbit (i.e. above the eqator).Thats one reason they are more difficult to receive the more north or south you go - far north or south comparativly larger dishes are needed to get a good enough signal.Dishes in coutries not close to the equator are offset designs - they seem not to point directly at the satelite, but they do (parabolic shape, reflection, focal point).Some advantages are: easier to mount, less space used, dish will not be filled with water or snow or dirt.

According to NASA who is enamoured with the number 17,000, that is how many satellites they tell us are in orbit now. Nevermind that there is nowhere close to that number of shuttle missions or launches by US rockets and other countries claim to have sent!However weak the gravitational field is suspected to be there is still a set amount of decay rate that causes a satellite to "fall" around the Earth with each rotation. This must be overcome. Where are the engines and fuel tanks on a satellite that correct these movements to keep them aloft for a decade or more? The vomit comet can not remain aloft for days on end for training. Just a short trip. Then it must land under it's own power even though it is at the breach of weightlessness, it can't sustain it.

Conversely, if a satellite has achieved "weightlessness", then it is tasked with keeping up under it's own power the trek of the Earth's forward rotation around the Sun.

Well in space these speeds are no problem. There's nothing that could stop you from gaining speed, except gravity from other objects (e.g planets) or some small particles cruising around there, but you can ignore these

GPS and weather forcecasting by the way wouldn't work if there were no satelites staying on the exact same place

However weak the gravitational field is suspected to be there is still a set amount of decay rate that causes a satellite to "fall" around the Earth with each rotation. This must be overcome.

That's wrong. How then could the moon circulate around the earth without "falling"? There is some certain rate of speed, due to the lack of my scientific english skills I dont know it's name, that keeps you in the exact same position when circulating around a given object.

Where are the engines and fuel tanks on a satellite that correct these movements to keep them aloft for a decade or more?

i don't know how to build a satelite but a plausible reason why there are no engines at the satelites is, that they cut it of as soon as the satelite is in position.

Well in space these speeds are no problem. There's nothing that could stop you from gaining speed, except gravity from other objects (e.g planets) or some small particles cruising around there, but you can ignore these

GPS and weather forcecasting by the way wouldn't work if there were no satelites staying on the exact same place

They have doppler radar which is the predominant weather forecasting tool.Just like everything else, your GPS is emiting a signal that bounces off the ionosphere. It is tracking your "position" in the same way that subs are tracked. By the ping.

However weak the gravitational field is suspected to be there is still a set amount of decay rate that causes a satellite to "fall" around the Earth with each rotation. This must be overcome.

If it is below the point of "weightlessness" or the gravitation field exertion. Once it is farther out, then you have keep it tethered by means of reaching speed to "keep up". Do you follow?

That's wrong. How then could the moon circulate around the earth without "falling"? There is some certain rate of speed, due to the lack of my scientific english skills I dont know it's name, that keeps you in the exact same position when circulating around a given object.

Geostationary? Centrifugal Force? The Moon exerts it's own gravitational field so strong it can affect tides on the Earth. Satellites do not. The Moon does not circulate around the Earth. The Earth spins on it's axis.

Where are the engines and fuel tanks on a satellite that correct these movements to keep them aloft for a decade or more?

i don't know how to build a satelite but a plausible reason why there are no engines at the satelites is, that they cut it of as soon as the satelite is in position.

And yet NASA claims that these booster rockets are necessary to correct the decay rate if within our atmosphere. Or are lost due to drift when outside it. Just like a satellite will be lost due to drift immediately unless it has it's own power to keep up.

Last edited by Unleashed on August 27th, 2011, 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

anon1911 wrote:Well in space these speeds are no problem. There's nothing that could stop you from gaining speed, except gravity from other objects (e.g planets) or some small particles cruising around there, but you can ignore these

GPS and weather forcecasting by the way wouldn't work if there were no satelites staying on the exact same place

...that keeps you in the exact same position when circulating around a given object.

i don't know how to build a satelite but a plausible reason why there are no engines at the satelites is, that they cut it of as soon as the satelite is in position.

ok, heres the rocket-science what keeps this 'Irene-tracking' sat in constant fixed position ?how does it stay 'fixed', what regulates its relative & higher spin speed ?what optimises its gravity/anti-gravity equilibrium?

Funny or should I say sadly, NASA never bothered to take a photo of this weather satellite, and the NWS doesn't have a picture of it hanging on the wall of their headquarters either. Even though they claim they are so dependent on it for vital info. You have to satisfy yourself that it looks like the cartoon imagery featured here, no doubt.

Look at the antenna that they claim is receiving the radio signal from the satellite! Wow, it looks remarkably like your old aerial antenna you watched TV with!And someone had the presence of mind to take a photograph of it. Hahahahaha.hmmmm.

@UnleashedNot trying to argue or to convince you of the correctness of my education.

It just so happens that I have not yet found reason to throw away everything I learnt about physics - to the contrary, I can and do verify it every day.

The 3 Newtonian laws - one of which is also known as the conservation of momentum - explain to me without a doubt that a body such as a satellite will not slow down when it does not meet resistance.Since there is almost no resistance because of almost no air up there, it is only a matter of the right speed and hight.Earths gravity pulls the satellite down - the satellites speed provides for the opposite outward force.The net result of forces is: the satellite does not fall.(well, it does: that is the centripetal forcethe equal but opposite centrifugal force comes from its angular speed)

Geosync and geostationary orbits are special cases - the distance from earth and speed making those satellites appear to stay at a fixed point (geostationary) or to move along a meridian appearing to go up and down periodically.

Since there is always a little resistance causing the satellites to slow down gradually over time, some propulsion is needed.One means is e.g. ion-trusters - they are small and also do not look like the rockets used to shoot the whole thing up from earth.They do not provide huge forces, but such are not needed - ony small attitude corrections and compensation for the very small drag. In turn they do not use much fuel (mostly xenon).Large force applied a short time and small force applied a long time will achieve the same result. No fuel burning rockets needed.

As for GPS: this is passiveEach satellite sends out its position and the exact time.The device just receives the signal from a few satellites and computes its location.

The moon not circulating around earth:Earth spins and the moon circulates - both, not one or the other.We have the phases of the moon because of it circulating the earth.Its rising and setting becaus earth spins.The name month comes from how long it takes the moon to do one full circle.

But that is just my reality - you may have yours.Communication is rather difficult with such diverging viewpoints

There are indeed some interesting theories which amount to the earth in center of universe and everything else revolving around it on some number of shells.Basically variants of the old view before Newton and Galileo.The sun on one shell, the moon on another, the planets each on its own, dito for the stars.No gravitation needed.But even in these, satellites are possible - such theories have the advantage that indeed no fuel would be needed once a satellite is up

Jonathan wrote:@UnleashedNot trying to argue or to convince you of the correctness of my education.

It just so happens that I have not yet found reason to throw away everything I learnt about physics - to the contrary, I can and do verify it every day.

The 3 Newtonian laws - one of which is also known as the conservation of momentum - explain to me without a doubt that a body such as a satellite will not slow down when it does not meet resistance.Since there is almost no resistance because of almost no air up there, it is only a matter of the right speed and hight.Earths gravity pulls the satellite down - the satellites speed provides for the opposite outward force.The net result of forces is: the satellite does not fall.(well, it does: that is the centripetal forcethe equal but opposite centrifugal force comes from its angular speed)

Geosync and geostationary orbits are special cases - the distance from earth and speed making those satellites appear to stay at a fixed point (geostationary) or to move along a meridian appearing to go up and down periodically.

Since there is always a little resistance causing the satellites to slow down gradually over time, some propulsion is needed.One means is e.g. ion-trusters - they are small and also do not look like the rockets used to shoot the whole thing up from earth.They do not provide huge forces, but such are not needed - ony small attitude corrections and compensation for the very small drag. In turn they do not use much fuel (mostly xenon).Large force applied a short time and small force applied a long time will achieve the same result. No fuel burning rockets needed.

As for GPS: this is passiveEach satellite sends out its position and the exact time.The device just receives the signal from a few satellites and computes its location.

The moon not circulating around earth:Earth spins and the moon circulates - both, not one or the other.We have the phases of the moon because of it circulating the earth.Its rising and setting becaus earth spins.The name month comes from how long it takes the moon to do one full circle.

But that is just my reality - you may have yours.Communication is rather difficult with such diverging viewpoints

There are indeed some interesting theories which amount to the earth in center of universe and everything else revolving around it on some number of shells.Basically variants of the old view before Newton and Galileo.The sun on one shell, the moon on another, the planets each on its own, dito for the stars.No gravitation needed.But even in these, satellites are possible - such theories have the advantage that indeed no fuel would be needed once a satellite is up

Thank you for your interest in my post.You know it always looks so good on paper!

Now here is what I'd like for you to do. Let's suppose that NASA wanted to launch a rocket with a satellite as payload. And further suppose they want it parked in 23,000 mile geostationary orbit.

Please tell the class how the satellites unfold and launch from the payload bay in the nosecone of the rocket. What happens to the rocket afterward? A nice photo of the satellite on the ground.How they get around gamma and solar radiation interference of the signal to and from 23,000 miles up? And what advantages this system holds over simply bouncing the radio transmission off the ionosphere ^^^^^^^ in this relay manner? Thanks just awfully much.

Unleashed wrote:Thank you for your interest in my post.You know it always looks so good on paper!

Now here is what I'd like for you to do. Let's suppose that NASA wanted to launch a rocket with a satellite as payload. And further suppose they want it parked in 23,000 mile geostationary orbit.

Please tell the class how the satellites unfold and launch from the payload bay in the nosecone of the rocket. What happens to the rocket afterward? A nice photo of the satellite on the ground.How they get around gamma and solar radiation interference of the signal to and from 23,000 miles up? And what advantages this system holds over simply bouncing the radio transmission off the ionosphere ^^^^^^^ in this relay manner? Thanks just awfully much.

Unleashed

You presented your view, I presented mine - and some reasons along with it.

It appears that I have stepped on your toes - sorry about that!

Caveat: I'm not sure I understood all of what you said the way you intended (e.g. the part with the photo) - I'm pretty good at english but sometimes not that good.

How would it help if I reiterated something I read about how satellites are deployed, as I have never engineered such things obviously.It sounds reasonable that "the rocket" has some fuel to do a de-orbiting deceleration after deployment of the payload. Does not need to be much - it will slowly but steadyly fall and eventually...you know.But I also read another reasonable sounding thing about a graveyard orbit a little lower than i.e. GEO because just letting the waste drop down will present danger to other lower satellites.

On the radiation:I don't know - do you?I think even the far out GEO is within the magnetosphere enough to be protected by it.

A travel to the moon is a different thing.

Advantages?e.g. positioning of an highly directional antenna such as a dish - with reflection at the ionosphere the dishes would need to be constantly adjusted because the point of reflection (height) changes during a day.They would not need to point exactly to a point located 36.000 km above the equator.Also the frequencies with which this bouncing off is possible are in the short wave band only(?).Also possible with the much higher frequencies actually used for TV for example?

I have no interest in disproving you as I said above.

There is a nice "app" for any smartphone and the data are available via internet too.Its called Iridium Flares - and it predicts where and when you can see such a thing.That would only work if it is really there, no?

Unleashed wrote:Thank you for your interest in my post.You know it always looks so good on paper!

Now here is what I'd like for you to do. Let's suppose that NASA wanted to launch a rocket with a satellite as payload. And further suppose they want it parked in 23,000 mile geostationary orbit.

Please tell the class how the satellites unfold and launch from the payload bay in the nosecone of the rocket. What happens to the rocket afterward? A nice photo of the satellite on the ground.How they get around gamma and solar radiation interference of the signal to and from 23,000 miles up? And what advantages this system holds over simply bouncing the radio transmission off the ionosphere ^^^^^^^ in this relay manner? Thanks just awfully much.

Unleashed

You presented your view, I presented mine - and some reasons along with it.

It appears that I have stepped on your toes - sorry about that!

Caveat: I'm not sure I understood all of what you said the way you intended (e.g. the part with the photo) - I'm pretty good at english but sometimes not that good.

How would it help if I reiterated something I read about how satellites are deployed, as I have never engineered such things obviously.It sounds reasonable that "the rocket" has some fuel to do a de-orbiting deceleration after deployment of the payload. Does not need to be much - it will slowly but steadyly fall and eventually...you know.But I also read another reasonable sounding thing about a graveyard orbit a little lower than i.e. GEO because just letting the waste drop down will present danger to other lower satellites.

On the radiation:I don't know - do you?I think even the far out GEO is within the magnetosphere enough to be protected by it.

A travel to the moon is a different thing.

Advantages?e.g. positioning of an highly directional antenna such as a dish - with reflection at the ionosphere the dishes would need to be constantly adjusted because the point of reflection (height) changes during a day.They would not need to point exactly to a point located 36.000 km above the equator.Also the frequencies with which this bouncing off is possible are in the short wave band only(?).Also possible with the much higher frequencies actually used for TV for example?

I have no interest in disproving you as I said above.

There is a nice "app" for any smartphone and the data are available via internet too.Its called Iridium Flares - and it predicts where and when you can see such a thing.That would only work if it is really there, no?

All the best!

Yes, people actually watched television without the use of a satellite. Just with antenna like is shown and supposedly receives weather data from a satellite. Did you see the link a couple pages ago?

I am disappointed you didn't find any pics of satellites you cared to share. They are rare, when NASA mostly favors animated drawings. Oh well.

So there are 17,000 sats and 10-12,000 more, who knows, decelerating rockets, in NEO? I found this website detailing 'photos' of iridium flares. Interesting. I confess to have never seen any of these flares. Though some did not seem to comport with being 33,000 miles up. While others....?http://www.astroverde.org/iridium_flares.htm

But, to be honest, I would just like to see photos of all the de-orbiting rockets!

Here are some related websites I found interesting. No, of course they don't include a photo of a satellite, except Sputnik. :/ And mentions that Earth's rotational speed is 894 mph (at Kennedy).

I couldn't match the photo here with their explanation of how excellerating with booster rockets after launching the sat occurs and if it did, why it wouldn't just barrel over the satellite.

I already related a conversation I had with a "tech support" guys who had no knowledge of any satellites, but did allow as how what you are paying for is the rental on a receiver for a converter box that allows for 300 channels vs. standard 13.

To say you were not trying to disprove me is a tad disingenuous. But, be that as it may, we will just have to agree to disagree.